Le samedi 02 octobre 2021 à 11:06 +0200, Vincent Prat a écrit : > Le 27/09/2021 à 17:26, Sébastien Villemot a écrit : > > > > Le samedi 25 septembre 2021 à 17:57 +0200, Vincent Prat a écrit : > > > I recently started packaging python-suitesparse-graphblas [1], which is > > > a Python binding of SuiteSparse:GraphBLAS [2]. > > > The version of GraphBLAS packaged in Debian comes from a different > > > repository that includes many other pieces of software, SuiteSparse [3]. > > > My problem is that the version included in SuiteSparse (currently 5.0.5) > > > is out of date compared to the standalone version (currently 5.1.7) used > > > by python-suitesparse-graphblas. > > > > > > What is the best option? > > > a) packaging the standalone version with a different name > > > b) packaging the standalone version instead of the one included in > > > SuiteSparse > > > c) packaging an outdated version of python-suitesparse-graphblas to fit > > > the version of GraphBLAS included in SuiteSparse > > > > > > As far as I know, other pieces included in SuiteSparse do not depend on > > > GraphBLAS, so I would rather go for option b. > > > Sébastien, can you confirm this ? > > I was not aware that GraphBLAS was also distributed independently of > > SuiteSparse. > > > > I am perfectly fine with option b. > > > > Just note that you will have to be careful with version numbers, > > especially since suitesparse currently has an epoch. The libgraphblas5 > > binary package that will be produced by your new source package must > > have a greater version number than the current one. > > > > What I would suggest is to not put the epoch in the new source package > > version, and to only add the epoch on the libgraphblas5 binary package > > (this is technically possible, see e.g. gcc-defaults). > > > > And when libgraphblas bumps its SOVERSION (whichs happens quite > > frequently), then you will be able to drop the epoch and revert to a > > standard versioning scheme. > > > Thank you for your reply. > I think I understand how to do this. > Besides, the Debian policy states that before increasing the epoch, one > should get a consensus on devian-devel, so I guess the discussion has to > move there. Actually there is no need to increase an epoch. There is already one on libgraphblas5, and we’re just talking about moving that binary package to a new source package, so it’s inevitable that the epoch has to stay. I don’t think that requires a discussion on debian-devel@. Please let me know when you want to move on with all this, so that I make the necessary changes in src:suitesparse in a coordinated fashion. Best, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part